Andreas Tziolas is drafting a blueprint for a mission to a nearby star. Here, he discusses how we'll get there -- and why we try.

We humans have known for a very long time that going to the stars will be difficult, if not impossible. The motto of NASA, Per Aspera Ad Astra, a latin phrase meaning "through hardship to the stars," comes down to us all the way from Seneca the Younger, a contemporary of Nero. Even today, when our metaphors of exertion and ambition are many --"swing for the fences," "go for gold" -- when we strain to capture the difficulty of a task, or the enormity of an achievement, "reach for the stars" is the first and most natural phrase that comes to mind. Our hierarchy of the ultimate human accomplishments is in this sense remarkably stable at the top.

And with good reason, because interstellar travel is in fact very difficult. With today's best propulsion technology, chemical rockets, it would take between 50 and a 100 millennia to reach Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun. The ideas we have about how to expedite such a journey are just that: ideas. They belong to the realm of speculation. Nonetheless, they are beginning to take on an empirical glow. To be sure, the bundle of technologies that could conceivably send a spacecraft to another star won't be here within the decade, or even within several, but neither are those technologies mere magical realism -- indeed, planning for their development has begun in earnest.

In September of last year DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, convened a conference in Orlando, Florida, to discuss and promote one of its newest and most intriguing research projects: The 100 Year Starship Study. According to DARPA, the study is intended to "develop and mature a technology portfolio that will enable long-distance manned space flight a century from now." To that end, DARPA is now negotiating a grant of $500,000 to ex-astronaut Dr. Mae Jemison, whose personal foundation will team up with Project Icarus, a division of Icarus Interstellar, to seed the plans for an interstellar mission that could span several centuries.

Project Icarus, which will focus on the mission's technological challenges, is a theoretical engineering study that was launched in 2009 by the British Interplanetary Society with the purpose of designing an interstellar spacecraft. It brings together an international group of volunteer aerospace engineers from government space agencies, universities and the private sector with the purpose of generating technical reports on the engineering layout, functionality, physics, operation, and mission profile of an interstellar probe. You can think of it as a kind of repository for bleeding-edge thinking about interstellar travel.

Project Icarus takes its inspiration from Project Daedalus, a five-year study launched by the British Interplanetary Society in 1973 to determine whether interstellar travel was feasible at all. Project Daedalus ultimately concluded that interstellar was possible, but acknowledged that the technical challenges were significant. Icarus aims to pick up where Daedalus left off, by trying to chip away at some of those technical challenges. Andreas Tziolas, a former research fellow at NASA who holds a Ph.D. in Gravitation and Cosmology, is the Project Leader for Project Icarus. Yesterday I spoke to Tziolas about how and, more interestingly, why we might someday send a mission to the stars.

How did you first get
interested in interstellar travel?

Tziolas: I've been interested in interstellar travel ever since I was
a young boy. I'm not ashamed to say that I was a child of Star Trek.
When I was growing up in Greece, I remember Star Trek would come on very early
on Sunday mornings, but that didn't stop me from watching -- I never missed an episode. My mother used to joke, "if only you would get
up for school with the same excitement that you get up on Sundays."

When it came time to choose a career, I knew it had to be this,
because for something like this to get done someone has to say "I'm going
to dedicate my life to this, to this thing that is difficult, this thing that is on the
fringe of science, so that we can put down a kind of stepping stone, and the next generation can step on it in order to enter into
this interstellar culture."

And that's what I've been doing these past 25 years.
My first degree was in spacecraft engineering, after which I worked on several
space missions for NASA. I worked on the Hubble Space Telescope, the Galileo
Mission to Jupiter; I worked on the Mars Pathfinder, and on the Mars Polar
Lander. And after a pretty intense period of involvement, I realized that from
an employment perspective, these projects were kind of tenuous. When you work
on a space mission, especially a planetary explorer, you're generally out of a
job once you make it to launch. Maybe two or three people out of the twenty
working on the mission will stay on as support staff, with the rest looking for
work elsewhere. So it's not the best way to pursue a career. At the time I was
interested in more analytical and computational physics, so I went back and did
a Ph.D. in Cosmology at Baylor University. In doing this, I was trying
to balance my capabilities, both the theoretical and technical capabilities,
and I think it worked, I think it gave me an advantage.

When Project Icarus was first started, one of the main
reasons we thought it was important was that people the original Daedalus team,
and several of the very important researchers in the field of interstellar
engineering had been slowly passing away, or else retiring. Suddenly you had
this situation where there wasn't a new generation of interstellar engineers on
the market. There was no one working on this.

When we started up, one of our first objectives was to raise up this
new generation of interstellar engineers -- we wanted volunteers, anyone,
whether they are Ph.D.'s or garage inventors, or just people who are passionate,
people who spend every evening reading about interstellar exploration. There
are several people around the world who have extraordinary technical
expertise, but don't necessarily look good on paper, and so they don't have an
opportunity to contribute to NASA or ESA or any of the other major space
agencies. And so where do those people go? They end up working in I.T. or they
end up working as clerks, but in their hearts they have this burning fire to do
research. So what we do is corral all of those people with that fire and we
organize them, and we organize the research in a detailed way, so that we can
harness the power of inclusiveness in doing this kind of research.

In Greek, Daedalus means
"cunning worker," and in Greek mythology of course Daedalus is this
master craftsman, the mythical embodiment of man as a maker of technology. But
his son Icarus was another story. He's famous for ignoring his father's
warnings about flying too close to the sun, and for drowning as a result of
that. So why Icarus?

Tziolas: Well there are two reasons. First of all Dr. Allen Bond, who
was the project leader for Daedalus, left a note to future generations in the
final program report for the Daedalus spacecraft. In it he said "we've
laid down some stepping stones, the first pebbles, and we set a direction, but
it will be the sons of Daedalus, perhaps an Icarus, that will have to come
through and make this a much more feasible design." Because remember what
Daedalus was trying to achieve was just a feasibility study, a study to see if
this was even possible. And the Daedalus reports are very underappreciated.
This was the first time in human history that some team proved that
interstellar exploration is feasible using the physics of today. That had never
been done before by NASA or anyone else. It was a significant milestone.

So that's why we chose "Icarus," but besides that
we have a clever way of seeing the Icarus myth, which brushes away some of the
inhibitions people have. Because we hear it a lot, that we picked the wrong
name, that "hey isn't this the guy who tried to fly with his father's wax
wings and fell into the ocean." But that was a myth, a myth from 2,500
years ago, and like many myths it's flexible, especially in a time like ours
when we have Hollywood and CGI, which are tools that allow you to reshape a
myth. In our version, Icarus falling into the ocean wasn't the final chapter.
We believe that he washed up on a beautiful deserted island, and he looked for
his father in the sky and didn't see him. So he started a fire on the beach,
and tried to think about how he might get back to the sky. And at that moment he looked toward the sky
and he saw his destiny, and his destiny was to forge new wings of steel and
fire so that he could try again. And he wouldn't repeat the mistakes of his
father, who after all had fashioned the original wax wings. He would improve on
his father's design.

A lot of reasons have
been offered for why this project, this general project of going to the stars,
is important for humanity. Some have said that in the long term the project is
necessary as a means of "backing up the biosphere," that we need to
find another planet in order to ensure that humans survive future extinction
events on earth. Others point to the potential for scientific knowledge, especially
in the areas of cosmology or astrobiology. And then there's the idea that deep space
is a kind of proving ground for humanity, that it provides the ultimate test of
our intellectual and creative capacities. In your eyes, what is the most
compelling reason we ought to pursue this?

Tziolas: This could be a very long conversation. At Project Icarus we
keep adding new reasons and new motivations for going interstellar, as we call
it. First is obviously the survival of humankind. If humanity is capable of
achieving interstellar flight but does not pursue it, does not pursue a program
of seeding other planets and other solar systems, then really we risk receiving
a Darwin Award as a civilization. If you can save yourself, but you don't, for
whatever reason -- how can you justify that?

"Why do we pay this obsessive attention to backing up a
document, which we can reproduce, when we pay no attention to backing up our
civilization?"

When you're working on a sensitive document on your computer,
the first thing you do is back it up. You make a copy of it, you email it to
yourself, you put it in your dropbox, and your flash drive -- sometimes all
these things at once. Why do we pay this obsessive attention to backing up a
document, which we can reproduce, when we pay no attention to backing up our
civilization? There is no greater endeavor than ensuring the survival of
humankind.

You also want to push technological boundaries. If you don't
have one of these huge problems to solve, that's hard, really hard, then you
won't motivate yourself to solve it. If the human population had never risen past
one billion people, everyone would live very comfortably, spread out, there might not
be high rises, transportation would be different -- the whole civilization would
be different. The unique problems that come with high populations have given
rise to these technologies, to these ways of living. Similarly, had we never
decided to go into space, our civilization would be very different. We wouldn't have
cell phones, we wouldn't have satellite systems, and we wouldn't have this type
of computational power. We would have been fine, but we would be stuck at a
certain level of technological advancement.

In order to achieve interstellar flight, you would have to
develop very clean and renewable energy technologies, because for the crew, the
ecosystem that you launch with is the ecosystem you're going to have for at
least a hundred years. With our current projections, we can't get this kind of
journey under a hundred years. So in developing the technologies that enable
interstellar flight, you could serendipitously develop the technologies that
could help clean up the earth, and power it with cheap energy. If you look
toward the year 2100, and assume that the 100 Year Starship Study has been
prolific, and that Project Icarus has been prolific, at a minimum we'd have
break-even fusion, which would give us abundant clean energy for millennia. No
more fossil fuels. We'd also have developed nanotechnology to the point where
any type of technology that you have right now, anything technology-based, will
be able to function the same way it does now, but it won't have any kind of
footprint, it will only be a square centimeter in size. Some people have
characterized that as "nano-magic," because everything around you
will appear magical. You wouldn't be able to see the structures doing it, but
there would be light coming out of the walls, screens that are suspended that
you can move around any surface, sensors everywhere -- everything would be
extremely efficient.

An artist's rendering of a blueprint from Project Daedalus (Image courtesy of Nathan Fowkes)

Project Daedalus favored
a nuclear fusion pulse engine, in which small pellets of fusion fuel would be
injected at high velocity into a reaction chamber and ignited by high-energy
electron beams. Is that still the favored propulsion technology?

Tziolas: Project Icarus is focused on a fusion-based propulsion
system, but the flavor of fusion is still up for debate. One of the problems
with the Daedalus fusion propulsion system is that it runs on Helium3
and Helium3 is very scarce on the surface of the earth. In fact, in
order to collect enough Helium3 to visit another star, you'd need to
mine the atmospheres of the gas giants like Neptune and Jupiter. So our current thinking is that this is probably not the best way to go to another star if it
requires that we mine half of the solar system just to get enough fuel. So,
we're trying to present a new fuel source or a new type of fusion, of which
there are several.

There are also other alternatives, such as beam propulsion,
which uses a ground station or an orbital station that focuses energy from the
sun into a beam, a stream of particles or radiation, in order to push a
spacecraft to the other star. The physics and engineering of this are both well
understood. We know how light reflects off of surfaces and we have experience
with solar panels, so we don't have the same disconnect that we have with
fusion. Because remember we haven't actually achieved fusion, sustained fusion,
in the laboratory. But the major problem is that the beam that you transmit is
going to diverge to a certain degree, and as a result you are going to lose
some thrust. The other obstacle is the sail you'd need to capture the beam; to
complete a mission like the one we're talking about you'd need a sail that was
roughly a hundred square kilometers in area, and that isn't feasible right now.

The third option is nuclear fission, which Project Orion
intends to use, and there you have small-scale nuclear warheads -- although we
don't call them that, we use something more diplomatic like "fission pulse
units" -- and you detonate them behind the spacecraft to push it through
space. Freeman Dyson has been an advocate of this approach.

Obviously there would
be enormous challenges involved in communicating with a starship at such great
distances. What is the latest thinking on how that might be accomplished?

Tziolas: Yes that's a major concern. If you can't communicate with
the ship then you don't know what the results are of your mission. It's an
active area of research, and we're considering several alternatives. One idea
is to moderate the fusion pulses in the main engine, and using it to encode
signals -- but that's a worst case scenario. We're also considering point-to-point laser
communications, but the challenge there is the power drain would be enormous.
It would probably require a second fusion reactor, and that's fine but you have
to design that in.

Another, more interesting option is the use of relays, and this was explored
in the previous phase of our research at Project Daedalus. The idea is that
when you drop the empty fuel tanks along the way, you design them so that they can double as relay
stations. You could power them with small reactors, and use them to relay
signals back to earth. We have two studies on this, and one says this could
work and the other says it can't, so we're working on it.

What are the main
considerations involved in choosing a destination star?

Tziolas: Well we're somewhat limited by the timescale we've chosen.
We want this to be a hundred year mission, and that puts our maximum range at
fifteen light years, using the best estimates about fusion technology. Right
now we're designing around Alpha Centauri because it's the easiest, and because
it's a double star we expect it to be very interesting scientifically. However,
if a terrestrial planet is discovered and it has a few oceans and it's within
22 light years instead of our maximum of 15, we would button down and make that
our mission. Habitability is the prime consideration.

Interesting. I'm
surprised it's that and not extraterrestrial life, but then I suppose they
overlap.

"To us, proliferating the human race
must always come first."

Tziolas: If there were two planets: one of them is teeming with life,
but it's not habitable because it's methane or sulfur based life, and the other
is an Eden with an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere and only eighty percent our
gravity, so everyone would be a superman, and they're in opposite directions,
where would we go if you had to pick one? To us, proliferating the human race
must always come first. We would go to the Eden and not think twice about it.

Do you expect that
the current exoplanet fever -- sparked by, among other things, the recent data
from the Kepler Space Telescope -- will lead to more attention and investment
in interstellar travel? Are there any other developments, be they cultural or
technological, that could give momentum to a serious public desire for a mission
to the stars?

Tziolas: The investment in exoplanet research is not going to end any
time soon. It's something you can keep on doing for a very long time, and it's
a nest that astrophysicists will be able to build and nurture, with advances in
capabilities on the scale of the great particle colliders on the Earth. You can
always go to higher power, you can always go to higher magnification, you can
try interferometric methods, better angular resolution, more spacecraft, the
James Webb Space Telescope, the list goes on. So once we find this Eden, this
beautiful place that is in our solar neighborhood, people are going to want to
go there. There will be a push for an interstellar mission and it's our hope
that Project Icarus is in a position to deliver when that happens.

In the meantime we are trying to raise the profile of
interstellar travel. It's something I often think about because I'm in charge of education and outreach for the project. One thing we're doing is adding
courses in interstellar engineering to aerospace programs in the United States
and in Europe. We expect the first of those to begin this Fall. But more
interestingly, we're also opening a new gaming division. For a while we'd pictured
these as educational games, but when we got to the 100 Year Starship conference,
the feedback we got was: "It doesn't have to be that educational -- just
make some spaceships that reflect your designs and let people fly around and
explore Alpha Centauri." And so we came back the next week and we started
looking into that, and now we're designing these games that we can use to
attract people to the concept of exploring another star.

This is something that is a constant focus for us, because
while it's certainly true that a mission of this kind needs a dedicated engineering
program, it also needs mindshare. We need people to believe that interstellar
travel is a reality, and we need them to adopt it as the next great space
exploration effort that humankind is going to undertake. And to do that we're
going to need a cultural shift in the way that we think about space, and the
way we think about the universe.

Have you and your
colleagues given any thought to including something like the Golden Record that
was stowed away on the two Voyager probes, the disc of sounds and images from Earth
compiled by Carl Sagan?

Tziolas: We have, actually. It only took a week after the project
began for people to start putting together a new record, and to start thinking
about what the content of the record would be, but we haven't really agreed on
what the message would be. After the core design team had the initial
discussion, we decided that the message should not be designed by physicists
and engineers but rather by a sociologist or an anthropologist, but that was
the limit to what we agreed on. We all agreed that what Carl Sagan sent was great;
we just need to adapt it to our own time. Since then we've been actively trying
to recruit anthropologists and sociologists to the team.

One of my concerns is that if we send another golden disc,
it might not be well suited to reaching its audience. The chances of an
extraterrestrial finding it and reading it are worse than a needle in a
haystack; it's like a particle in a universe. So my preference is to design
some kind of module that was more technological than the analog disc, that way
you could send it in to orbit around your target star, equip it with solar
panels, have it charge up and once every twelve hours or so it gives out a
pulse. And that would be just to give this other civilization something to look
at, and when they design the capabilities to go check it out, they would, and
then inside there would be something static, something like the golden record.

An artist's rendering of a ship powered by nuclear fusion (Image courtesy of Adrian Mann)

About the Author

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.